Are patient decision aids effective? Insight from revisiting the debate between correspondence and coherence theories of judgment
نویسندگان
چکیده
Research endeavors to determine the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs) have yielded mixed results. The conflicting evaluations are largely due to the different metrics used to assess the validity of judgments made using PtDAs. The different approaches can be characterized by Hammond’s (1996) two frameworks for evaluating judgments: correspondence and coherence. This paper reviews the literature on the effectiveness of PtDAs and recasts this argument as a renewed debate between these two meta-theories of judgment. Evaluation by correspondence criteria involves measuring the impact of patient decision aids on metrics for which there are objective, external, and empirically justifiable values. Evaluation on coherence criteria involves assessing the degree to which decisions follow the logical implications of internal, possibly subjective, value systems/preferences. Coherence can exist absent of correspondence and vice versa. Therefore, many of the seemingly conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of PtDAs can be reconciled by considering that the two meta-theories contribute unique perspectives. We argue that one approach cannot substitute for the other, and researchers should not deny the value of either approach. Furthermore, we suggest that future research evaluating PtDAs include both correspondence and coherence criteria.
منابع مشابه
The uses and abuses of the coherence – correspondence distinction
Kenneth Hammond introduced a distinction between coherence and correspondence criteria of rationality as a tool in the study of judgment and decision-making. This distinction has been widely used in the field. Yet, as this paper seeks to show, the relevant notions of coherence and correspondence have been progressively considered to be too narrow and have undergone non-trivial conceptual change...
متن کاملTheories of truth as assessment criteria in judgment and decision making
Hammond (1996) argued that much of the research in the field of judgment and decision making (JDM) can be categorized as focused on either coherence or correspondence (C&C) and that, in order to understand the findings of the field, one needs to understand the differences between these two criteria. Hammond’s claim is that conclusions about the competence of judgments and decisions will depend ...
متن کاملFrom Craft to Reflective Art and Science; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”
Patient engagement practices are increasingly incorporated in health research, governance, and care. More recently, a large number of evaluation tools and metrics have been developed to support engagement evaluation. This growing interest in evaluation reflects a maturation of the patient engagement field, moving from a “craft” to a reflective “art and science,” with more explicit expected bene...
متن کاملThe Coherence and Incoherence among the Order of Effusion, Physics, and Ancient Astronomy from the Perspective of Muslim Philosophers
The present article deals with coherence and incoherence among the theories of the order of effusion, physics and ancient astronomy. There is no coherence between these fields in the view of Plotinus who is the innovator of the theory of effusion, while there is a coherence and correlation among these orders in Farabichr('39')s philosophy. In this regard Ibn Sina, Ikhwan al-Safa , Shaykh al-...
متن کاملدانش، بینش و مدیریت
Model building is one of the most important characteristics of human beings. According to a classification, there are three kinds of models. The first type are omdels which are unique to every individual person and every body has his own models. Another kind of models are those which are general. Theories arise from this kind of models. The third kind are modols for model building and deals wit...
متن کامل